Ambassadors

"Biased" is precise, yes.

This is very tangential, but I think that our inter-group reporting is tragically contaminated by the poisonous content-rating metrics of our globally predominant media channels. -- Most especially, I think that communication is poisoned by the prevalence of the "like" metric, which IMO deeply motivates the production of polarizing media content.

Anyway, I don't know of any good recipes for groups to agree on who's officially an "ambassador", except maybe the stringent "full consent" standards I suggest in Agreement-Based Organization-- and I'm not holding my breath for any existing groups to adopt those standards. (Though I've used them nonstop for over two years in an discussion group administration team of 6-8 people.)

I agree about the "like" metric and other rewards for attention-seeking, but do think a lot of people are getting wise to that and building up their immune responses.

Likewise, I think a lot of people are examining their own biases, and that overall, those of us who are trying to collaborate are getting better at it. Not to say "good" at it, just better...

When I started this discussion, I was not thinking so much of official ambassadors, but people who fulfill that function naturally and might want to do so consciously and figure out how to do it well. Like, help make more collaboration happen between groups.

"I think that our inter-group reporting is tragically contaminated by the poisonous content-rating metrics of our globally predominant media channels"

In psych we learn about negative reinforcement, which is something any who's tried to direct a 2 year old knows all about. In the absence of positive feedback, the more attention you pay something, even with highly negative feedback, the more you reinforce it. I dislike the vaguary of the 'like' button, and I've been arguing against having it on Loomio since it first turned up, but at least it's positive feedback (jazz hands!).

The "news" ideology that only bad news is serious news, is negative reinforcement, an incredibly powerful form. As is the Anglo-American cultural hangup that says that sex and pleasure are not valid entertainment, but violence and killing are, even for children (think Roadrunner). The Broadcast seems to be stuck in negative biases that don't affect mesh networks (weaves of multiple overlapping membership), in quite the same way. Especially when they are primarily in-person networks, running on physics protocols ;)

For whatever it's worth, I think that negative signaling and metrics can be quite useful.

For instance, I think it's important to have the option to give a product a poor rating, although people may well disagree on the (generally lax, vague) standards for "voting rights" in ratings systems.

Likewise, I think it's important to facilitate our ability to create well-organized feedback on an axis from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree" for others' online declarative statements-- within reasonably clear and controlled social contexts.

Regardless of what metrics are or aren't used, however, I guess we'd agree that communities should determine them, instead of having them imposed by organizations like fb, twitter or even Loomio Cooperative?

Of course this is extremely tangential, so just let me know if you'd like to discuss it elsewhere. Also, I don't want to downplay your wise focus on positive reinforcement.